"They found (and surreptitiously photographed with mobile phone cameras) half a 
dozen or more bullet injuries on the top of 17-year-old Sajid’s skull. It is 
evident that he was held down and shot many times into his head. This could not 
be the “encounter killing” of a beleaguered police force defending itself 
against dreaded terrorist fire. It is deliberate, cold-blooded killing. 
Eye-witnesses say that Atiq’s body had many marks of injury apart from bullets, 
including the peeling off skin from near his waist."
 


Date:19/10/2008 URL: 
http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/mag/2008/10/19/stories/2008101950100300.htm

Barefoot
The real travesty
HARSH MANDER





Calling for a judicial enquiry into the Batla House encounter is a not a 
travesty. Denying the need for one is…

The boys have been killed, and then charged post-facto of heinous terrorist 
outrages. They have no way now of defending their names or their lives.


Photo: R.V. Moorthy

Unanswered questions: Protestors in Delhi demanding an enquiry.


These days, there is much to mourn in the national capital of Delhi. I mourn 
the slaughter of a child who ran helpfully behind two men on a motor-cycle who 
left behind a package, and his head was blown away because the package 
contained a bomb. I mourn the death of a police inspector on duty in the Jamia 
Nagar “encounter”. But I mourn no less the shooting of two young boys in the 
hands of the police, with no chance to defend themselves from charges that they 
“masterminded” terror bomb blasts not just in Delhi, but also in Ahmedabad, 
Hyderabad and Bangalore.
One of the boys, Sajid, was all of 17 years old, and had come to Jamia to 
prepare for an entrance examination for Class XI. Atiq had voluntarily sought 
police verification when he took the small room on rent. He gave his accurate 
details when he took a driving licence. He was preparing for his examinations, 
and a documentary filmmaker, Ameeq, who knew him for many years, said he met 
him a week before the killing, and he said he dreamed of becoming an Air Force 
pilot. He posted his face on a social networking website, and said his 
favourite films were “Mother India” and “Rang de Basanti”. He could afford to 
rent only a tiny room in the Muslim ghetto of Batla House where students from 
many parts of the country who cannot get hostel rooms hire cramped apartments. 
He shared this with Sajid and three other friends. One of them was appearing 
for an examination in a management school the morning of the killings.Presuming 
innocence

On the face of it, any of these boys could have been my son or your brother. It 
is, of course, possible as the police claim, that this is the technique of 
“sleeper terrorists” to appear to be ordinary, law-abiding citizens, and 
thereby escape detection. But, it is equally possible that they were innocent, 
and were framed in an illegal encounter staged by a government which felt under 
great duress to demonstrate results after public anger was high in the wake of 
a series of bomb explosions. The law of the land, as guaranteed by our 
democratic constitution, requires the presumption that a person is innocent 
until proved guilty. But the boys have been killed, and then charged post-facto 
of heinous terrorist outrages. They have no way now of defending their names or 
their lives.
We have only the police’s word that they are terrorists. But, in all 
democracies, because the police is known to be fallible but also to extract 
“confessions” under duress including torture, statements before the police are 
not admissible as evidence. In all other cases, the media and the public at 
large are uniformly sceptical of police versions of events. In innumerable high 
profile criminal cases in recent times, the confident claims of the police have 
fallen by the wayside. This time there were contradictory and competitive 
claims from other police establishments, unwilling to let Delhi seize the 
thunder, that they had found “masterminds” and one police chief even claimed to 
have found the mastermind of masterminds!
But in our rage and fear of terrorist attacks, and our willingness to believe 
the worst about young men of the “guilty” Muslim community, we have wilfully 
suspended our disbelief in the police claims in this encounter.
Community leaders had insisted that the body of the two slain boys be given the 
ritual bathing before their hasty burial under the shadow of the police. They 
found (and surreptitiously photographed with mobile phone cameras) half a dozen 
or more bullet injuries on the top of 17-year-old Sajid’s skull. It is evident 
that he was held down and shot many times into his head. This could not be the 
“encounter killing” of a beleaguered police force defending itself against 
dreaded terrorist fire. It is deliberate, cold-blooded killing. Eye-witnesses 
say that Atiq’s body had many marks of injury apart from bullets, including the 
peeling off skin from near his waist.
Even assuming that the boys who were killed were indeed dangerous terrorist 
masterminds, it would have been rational for the police to try to capture them 
alive, to collect evidence of the entire national terror network. I visited the 
site of the “encounter”, and know from many years of experience of district 
administration, that the best course would have been to seal the building, 
evacuate the other residents, and “smoke out” the residents of the fourth floor 
apartment who could exit only from a single door. And even if it became 
necessary for the police to fire in self-defence, they are trained to shoot at 
the leg, and not to pump bullets into the skull. Residents describe how, after 
the initial round of firing, there were many rounds of firing in the air and 
flower pots were thrown to create the illusion of a scene of pitched battle 
between the “dreaded” terrorists and the police.
The biggest puzzle is the death of Mohan Chand Sharma, veteran of 35 
“encounter” killings. Why did a man with so much experience not wear a 
bullet-proof vest? He walked down four flights of stairs to his vehicle. He 
died several hours later, stated to be as the result of excessive loss of 
blood. There could be many explanations of his bullet wound. One could be that 
he was shot at by one of the two boys, as claimed by the police. But it is also 
possible that he could have died after a bullet ricocheted, or, in the scuffle, 
it could have been accidental firing from one of the police colleagues. The 
truth can be established only by an independent enquiry.Flouting the law

The National Security Advisor, M.K. Narayanan, described the demand for a 
judicial enquiry into the “encounter” as a “travesty”. I hope this does not 
reflect the views of the government at the highest level. If this is a 
travesty, why has the National Human Rights Commission instructed that every 
case of death by police firing should be registered as a case of culpable 
homicide and investigated accordingly? All deaths in police custody, as well as 
deaths resulting from police firings, are required under the law routinely to 
be investigated by a magistrate, although governments are increasingly failing 
in ordering this, in a growing culture of impunity. As veteran human rights 
activist Kannabiran puts it sardonically, “Some would be satisfied if there is 
a law offering complete immunity to a person who shot another on mere suspicion 
of being a terrorist.”
The mothers of some of the boys accused of terror acts have appeared on 
television, and declared that their children should be publicly hung if it is 
proved that they are terrorists. They only plead that the charges should first 
be proved. Is it too much to seek only the due process of law? An entire 
community fears that the Jamia “encounter” was faked to target their innocent 
youth, and there is a growing body of independent opinion which shares these 
apprehensions. If the government has nothing to hide, it should be ready to 
allay the fears of so many of its citizens by coming clean in a judicial 
enquiry. It is not the demand for a judicial enquiry but its stubborn refusal 
that is the real travesty in a democratic polity.  


With Regards

Abi

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Reply via email to